In case there is any confusion on what happened last night on the reviewed goal — and I know there was on my end — the ref told the video review judge that he did not signal “no goal” but that he blew the whistle and moved his arms to signify a stoppage. Then, a review clearly showed the puck in the net. The question is, what would have happened if the ref said he DID signal no goal? Could they review the timing of the whistle? That’s still not totally known. Crazy goal…still lots of debate.
Players and coaches are meeting now, after which there is media availability, so stay tuned…
Meh. It was clearly a goal, and the ref just didn’t get a good look with all the poking and flailing. Not sure what other debate there can be.
On to next game…
[Reply]
I wouldn’t want to win the game on a technicality anyway. It was a fair goal and in the spirit of the game it should be counted every time.
[Reply]
In re-reviewing the video clearly the puck went in before the whistle.
[Reply]
I’m pretty sure we saw the exact same stuation during the Ducks/Sharks playoffs last year. The ruling was that the official lost sight of the puck, and was in the process of blowing the play stopped presuming it was covered.
The puck did in fact cross the line before the whistle, but it was ruled no goal because the official had the intent and was in the motion of blowing the whistle. It’s just one of those situations where no matter what, someone is going to be upset with the call.
[Reply]
According to the Rangers announcers, the goal in question was not a reviewable situation, BUT if it was obvious it could be reviewed like anything else.
That sounds like the NHL’s version of T*E*G*W*A*R The Exciting Game Without Any Rules.
[Reply]
The only problem was the Iceberg not getting his pad up against the post and Zues giving Callahan an escort to the net.
[Reply]
I don’t know if, by the rules, it should’ve been a goal based on the blowing of the whistle. I never was able to tell when he blew the whistle, or where the puck was when he did. And remember, it’s not when he blows the whistle. It’s when he decides he’s going to blow the whistle.
In either case, the puck was clearly not covered, and whistle or not, the goal was earned and deserved to stand. It didn’t afect the outcome of the game, so I’m not gonna think about it any more.
[Reply]
Yes, it was indeed a goal. No, under the rules, it should not have been reviewed. The call on the ice at the time should have stood.
Regardless, time to move on and kick the crappy out of Detroit!
[Reply]
I appreciate that that was properly a goal, but if I were in charge of NHL referees I would ask the ref to reconsider how he initially responded to the situation with that arm-wave.
[Reply]
On the other hand, Gaborik WAS offside on his goal.
[Reply]
What ever happened to Gretzky becoming the “ambassador of hockey” for the Kings?
[Reply]
I agree the Kings should have won regardless and played a great game, but consistency is important especially in officiating. This play should have been non-reviewable as it was in Columbus the night before. Yes it was a goal and was in before the whistle but the on ice call was no goal and you cannot review when the whistle blew. This is why officals should be graded and after a couple of these glaring errors should be demoted to the minors like with referees in English Football(soccer)
[Reply]
Actually Mike, no he wasn’t…
http://lakingsnews.com/2009/10/14/whats-a-missed-offsides-call/
[Reply]
The only thing frustrating about that goal against is the fact that we’ve had that call go against us plenty of times.
Last year we had an important goal that went in before the whistle called back because of the “referee intended to blow the whistle before he actually did” rule. That’s the rule and it’s cost us goals in the past.
It should have cost the Rangers a goal yesterday.
Oh well, moving on…
[Reply]
If the goal occurred before the ref even intended to blow the whistle, it’s a goal even if it was called as a “no goal” by the ref. Like in St. Louis, where the Blues thought they scored, it was waved off, and the whistle blew nearly a minute later. Just because it’s waved off and there’s a whistle doesn’t mean it’s not a goal. The intention to blow the whistle has to occur before the puck goes in the net (to wave it off), and it didn’t. It’s a goal.
I’d like to see the league change the rule to get rid of the “intended to blow the whistle” wrinkle anyway. They should be able to do a review of whether the puck went in before the whistle, and all legal goals before then should count. The players don’t stop playing because the ref intends to blow the whistle; they only stop when the whistle sounds. There’s no good reason to disallow a goal before then.
[Reply]
@wavesinair…
thanks for the link
it’s amazing to me all the talk about off-side on that goal. I saw it and immediately realized he had control of the puck. (that doesn’t take away the fact that it should have been a save for ersberg…) I have known forever you can skate in backwards if you want and cross the blue line before the puck as long as you have control of it…but i guess that knowledge has come from playing hockey for almost 20 years and seeing it happen all the time.
[Reply]
should have been a goal.
I do remember the sting more than once of having the goal called back “because the ref intended to blow the whistle sooner”.
lame call to me..if it goes in before the whistle it should be a goal. intent or not.
[Reply]
Natlawyer
Your exactly right. An officials mistake should not prevent a good goal or allow a bad goal.
[Reply]
Mike, Gaborik was not offsides on the play, even though his skates entered the offensive zone before the puck, he still had full control of the puck. I have seen it called many times, but the non call was correct.
Rule 83.1
“However, a player actually controlling the puck who shall cross the line ahead of the puck shall not be considered “off-side,” provided he had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the blue line.”
[Reply]
Is there anyone else here that thinks we would be better off playing lewis tonight and sitting Ivanas?
[Reply]
@ old man:
that might not be a bad idea…i don’t think the red wings really have an “enforcer” threat that ivanans would need to match up against.
then again, maybe i am not that familiar with their roster…do they have a “tough guy”?
[Reply]
The problem I had with the goal is that it looks like the ref clearly waved it off, which would have made it non-reviewable. I don’t see how the league can go back and review the play and not see that he had waved it off. The puck clearly went in before the whistle, and should have been a goal, except for the fact that the play should not have been reviewed. But it should never had gotten to that point anyway. Ersberg could not keep his foot against the post, and how many hacks did the Rangers have at the puck at the side of the net before it went in?
[Reply]
No they don’t. Play Lewis. Time for Ivanas or Harrold to sit.
[Reply]
Puck was already in the net when the whistle blew. End of story.
[Reply]
I’m noticing with the onslaught of new people here that rather than actually reading the comments and responding to them (which makes for a fun blog) or making new points, many people are just re-stating previously made points. Read people, READ!
[Reply]
Old Man-
What’s your take on the Ivanans holding the stick penalty to start the game? Typical?
Play lewis. No brainer
[Reply]
I’ll be different on Lewis/Ivanans debate.
I thought the 4th line was outstanding last night..especially Richardson and Harrold. They kept the puck in the Rangers zone every shift and were relentless on the forecheck. With any luck they should have had 2 goals. Ivanans took his usual dumb offensive zone penalty, but he was effective after that with the other 2 guys.
I know it was only 2 games or whatever, but Lewis didn’t play well at all when he was in there.
I won’t lose sleep over switching Ivanans and Lewis, but that’s my take on it.
[Reply]
Waves
Agree!
[Reply]
it was a goal…ultimately, the right call was made even though it became very confusing…
we played well enough to win…ee will be better in the future…
bring on the major leagues…bring on the red wings…!
[Reply]
It’s over now. Let’s just beet the Wings! Go Kings GO!!!!
[Reply]
I’m going to have video up on the goal, with freeze frames and such, at http://lakingsnews.com in about 30 minutes. You can decide for yourselves.
[Reply]
The Gaborik goal, I mean.
[Reply]
Re: Gaborik’s goal,
You be the judge. http://lakingsnews.com/2009/10/15/offsides-video-review-what-is-control/
[Reply]
That is clearly NOT offsides, under NHL (or even USA) Hockey Rules
[Reply]
You are right, it technically is not offsides. But it should be.
[Reply]
Re: Gaborik’s goal. So it is not really a “Blue LIne” but more of a Blue AREA, with the LInesman making his own ASSUMPTION as to control or not. Really, I’ve never liked that rule, just as I don’t like the Ref’s “I intended to blow the whistle” so that’s where play stops. It’s like turning a double play at second base now-a-days, as long as he’s “in the area”, it counts just like he actually stepped on the bag. You either have a rule or not. It’s best to make it clear and simple rather than interpretive.
[Reply]
This thread went from the reviewed goal to Gaborik’s goal. I’m taking it back to the reviewed goal.
It was a goal. We all admit that. The problem I have is how the officiating handled it. The signal they gave looked like a washout signal. It confused the players. It confused the coaches. It confused the other refs. It confused everyone. The refs should do a much better job of making the call correctly.
If the hand signal is a problem, fine. Change it. Do what they do in rubgy. When a try is scored (And more times than not this happens), and there is the slightest bit of doubt, the ref blows the whistle and outlines a box with his hands signaling very clearly the goal is under video review. The situation does not matter. There is a warroom at the stadium that makes the determination and the ref is in constant contact. This is simple, clear and concise. You cannot mistake a ‘no try’ with a video review or no call.
In my opinion, it would give the refs more time and power to make the right call and not confuse everyone in the process. Just a thought.
[Reply]
however:
http://wp.me/ptucv-DE
[Reply]